Marxism paradox: Help please

I'm stuck on what seems like a flaw in the the basis for marxist/socialist thought.  I'd be grateful for help in clearing up my understanding. 

According to Marx's labor theory of value, the individual worker does not receive full value for his production, because the greedy, exploitive capitalist pockets a portion for himself.  Whether or not that is true, here's the apparent logical inconsistency...

The paradox
Given the labor theory of value, why does one of the main guiding principles of socialism/marxism/communism say:

"...to each according to his need"

as opposed to:

"...to each according to his production"?

If this apparent logical flaw was truly a mistake by marxism's slogan-crafters (aside from the sexism), then it seems to me the full slogan should have been as follows:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his production." 

...which, by the way, is too wordy.  Strunk & White would have chopped it down to this:

"From and to each according to his production."

In any case, do you know anyone who can resolve this gap in my understanding?

Comments

[Salvatorem]

What Marx never addressed is the concept of labor unions working harmoniously with the greedy exploitive capitalists to fairly compensate workers for their productivity. Without this very significant aspect of capitalism, Marx's short-sided socialistic economic theories correctly end up in the historical trash heap.

[Ethyl Added]

Wikipedia has an article on "to each according to his contribution", considered a characteristic of socialism or pre-communism.

"Marx says that this is a rational and necessary, but unfair method. And that once society advances from the lower phase of communist society, distribution will occur along different lines. During the higher phase of communism, then the standard shall be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as Marx's famous slogan states."

[tom]

My guess is to think of the community warehouse. Everyone in the community would take what they have produced according to their ability to the warehouse. And anyone could take whatever they wanted from the warehouse according to what they needed. One side is the consumption side (needs) and the other is the production side (ability).

[Will]

Its tough isn't it. How can one tell the difference between exploitive profits, which is extraction of resources from those that produced them, and redistribution, which is also extraction of resources from those that produced them.

Good thing Marx put the vanguard, academics and such, in charge of distinguishing the two. The nuance would just confuse the rest of us.

[Robbie]

The Marxist state has more needs than the individual worker (we are all equal but the leaders of the Marxist state are more equal than others), so the state has to take more of what the worker produces. But, don't worry, the great & wise Marxist leaders will know what you need better than the capitalist pigs, so the state will provide for you according to your needs. I'm sure Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro, may their names be blotted out, could explain it to you better than I could.

[Robbie]

Trust me, no Marxist government has EVER made life miserable for its citizens, just as no capitalist nation has EVER made life better. Disclaimer: please pay no attention to evidence.

[gilleland]

Did Marx distinguish between needs and wants?

Are "needs" defined on an absolute or relative basis?

I realize these questions are beside the point of this post but in my mind the issue of needs v. wants is a key issue to the practicality and sustainability of a society based on that main guiding principle of socialism/marxism.

Did Marx even acknowledge the impact to individual freedom that socialism requires--and he believes it is worth the trade-off?

[William Woody]

My understanding is that this Communist slogan was about individuals consuming only what they need to consume. Communism itself presupposes that mankind would evolve to an enlightened state where they could cooperate without any of the mechanisms of legal or "financial" control--that eventually we would grow beyond "greed" and the need to accumulate wealth, all which are seen by communists as fundamental human flaws which are the cause of all the ills in the world. (And yes, Captain Piccard said something like this on Star Trek: TNG.)

This idea, that eventually people would grow beyond biologically ingrained needs to compete, to accumulate, and to create wealth, was what prompted entomologist Edward Wilson to quip "Wonderful theory. Wrong species."

[Ken]

Wrong paradigm. You'll get nowhere analyszing communism thru the material lense. Instead of looking at material goods, look at the question of will, or intent. This is the philosophy that thought that no task is impossibly as long as someone tries hard enough for it (the NEED has to be there). There is a reason that USSR did away with studying genetics, it contradicted the official philosophy.

[JBL]

According to Marx, in effect:

Under capitalism, the worker spends part of his day producing things we need, for which he is paid. And then he spends part of his day producing things we don't really need and donating the proceeds to the capitalist.

Under communism, needs and production are essentially equal. Eliminate the capitalist and focus on the needs, and production falls in line accordingly.

Workers under communism don't get paid more, they work less. In this limited aspect, one could say history has proven Marx correct.

[Gil]

Point taken JBL. However I think S.O. was asking how Communism was supposed to sense in theory or why Communism would outpace Capitalism or at least work at all. I think Picard gave an answer in that Star Trek movie with the Borg when a woman from his past asked how much money did it take to build the Enterprise.

But strictly speaking Communism can't work because there's always has to be incentive for any one to do something especially beyond the necessary. Likewise Anarchism can't work because there's alway some sort of hierarchy in groups.

[rg]

@JBL

"And then he spends part of his day producing things we don't really need and donating the proceeds to the capitalist."

This may well be correct. However, is it not so that the capitalist (I assume you mean the boss with that) only gets these proceeds, when and if somebody buys these "things we don't really need"?

Could it be that this would be that same worker?

I would say that in capitalism the worker who "needs" fewer things can also work less, and if he chooses to "need" more things, he has either to work harder or smarter.

rg

[Iago]

It is a mistake to believe that Marxism had anything particular to do with economics. At best, economics was a framework in which the state could be established and maintained as the supreme entity with everyone subordinant, and with individual freedom and identity lost. Contrast this with the Constitution of the United States, where the individual was sovereign, and the state was constrained and submissive.

Aristotle, his contemporary Mozi, and Marx each espoused a similar collectivist philosophy, whereby the functions of the family were to be destroyed and everyone would be dependent upon and answerable to the state.

The incessant chatter about the economics of socialism, national socialism, international socialism, and fascism is confusing, often deliberately so, and meaningless, as this thread demonstrates.

Before WWII, Gramsci recognized the futility and meaninglessness of economic communism, and preached a cultural communism wherein the collectivist state would be established by capturing a few controlling cultural entities: churches, media, the academy, courts, and political parties primarily. This is the struggle in which we are now engaged.

The citizens of the United States have serially refuted collectivism in all its guises (Communism, Socialism, Wallace progressivism, and illiberal Liberalism). But the fight goes on. Isn't it exciting?

[Joe D]

Marxism a failed ideology
==========================

Marxism is a failed j**ish ideology, did you expect a kleptomaniac tribe to evolve "each according to their production" ideology?

[Vadim]

As former citizen of USSR, I consider myself an "expert" on the issue :)

Yes, Ethyl's (wikipedia) "to each according to his contribution" was slogan of socialism, or 1st phase of communism. We were told at school that 2nd phase will be "to each according to his needs".

How is it possible? We were told "productivity will be much higher under communism" or "people will cap their needs accordingly" :)

IMHO, marxism has nothing to do with economic theory. Maybe in 19th century it looked like it was, but not anymore. I think people are driven to anti-capitalism in any forms because of envy to the rich. It is that simple. So people follow Marx, anti-globalism, welfare state, etc.

As per socialist reality, "to each according to his contribution" was a slogan, not a working rule. In reality "each" got his "fair share". What fair was decided by the state burocrats. Workers were paid more than engineers, doctors, scientists. W/out capitalist pressures (you can't be fired, you can't open business, no competition etc), "each" was simply trying to contribute less and to grab more. The system simply was not working.

And BTW, I'm j**ish :)

[Jose]

Steve,

The Marxist labor theory of value is consistent with Marx's maxim "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In fact, changing the maxim as you suggest "to each according to his production" would completely destroy the Marxist system.

Marx's labor theory of value purportedly identified the mechanism by which the owners of capital extracted (Marx would say "stole") the value of the labor provided by the workers. In the end, Marx views capitalists as leeches upon the value produced by the workers. Capitalists can do this because they own the capital.

If there was no private property (i.e., the "enlightened" socialist state owned the capital AND the product produced by the workers), then everything that the workers produced would go back to the socialist state, who owns it all. Now, different workers would produce different things, presumably valued differently under the capitalist system, even though all the workers are theoretically working equally hard (heh ;-). In the socialist/communist system, however, what we think of in the capitalist system as the "value" of the product is irrelevant. Remember, according to Marx, what we call "value of production" in the capitalist system is really just numbers arbitrarily placed on different types of production to basically "hide the ball" from the workers that the capitalists are stealing their work, sweat and tears.

Therefore, under Socialism (State-compelled) and Communism (no state compulsion required, since we have all been successfully "reprogrammed" to reject "fetishism") everyone would work to their maximum ability - "From each according to his ability...." Now, there would still be factory workers, plumbers, farmers, and even software programmers like Bill Gates. They would all produce to their "maximum ability" the stuff that society uses today. So the farmers would produce food, and put it all in the "society warehouse" for society's use. The factory workers would produce supplies, and the plumbers would take some of these plumbing supplies and fix the plumbing for everyone. Bill Gates would be making Windows and give it to society for the use of everyone that needs it. However, Bill Gates would not get any extra production value because he made Windows. He gets only what he "needs."

"[T]o each according to his need." Marx understood that individuals would "need" different amounts depending on what was going on in their life. So Bill Gates gets only one portion of food, equal to all portions. But if Bill is married and has two children, he can get 2 adult portions of food and 2 kid portions. Why? Because he "needs" more food. If Bill gets sick, he gets the same "portion" of medicine that everyone else would get if they got sick. Why? Because he "needs" more medicine. If Bill is hurt, and cannot program, he STILL gets the same amount of food and gets some health care. Why? because he "needs" it.

The point is that in the Socialist/Communist system, production and consumption are completely unrelated. The consumption is EXACTLY the same for everyone under the "same" circumstances, because people don't "need" more. Regardless of what they produce (or don't), since people will have been "reprogrammed" to produce at their maximum ability, while only taking what they need.

In effect, the maxim "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," are two separate clauses - and Marx intends this. Each person produces to their maximum ability (whatever that is), and each person only takes what they need (which should be the same "need" for people in similar circumstances).

Hopefully, it is clear now why changing the maxim to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his production," would not work. In effect, "to each according to his production" IS STILL CAPITALISM. Under your formulation, you have not "de-linked" an individual's consumption from that individual's production.

I hope that helps. I know I rambled a bit, but it is late ;-). Let me know if you don't understand what I am saying.

Thanks,

Jose

[Stan Heard]

I am intrigued by the comments. When the SO started this blog, the question was whether or not there is a flaw in the Marxist theory concerning labor theory versus the distribution of goods according to needs. If the argument in Marxism is that workers do not get the full value of their labor therefore we need Marxism to insure the workers are not "exploited" by capitalist, then how does distribution according to needs solve the problem?

And, speaking of distribution, just exactly how does the stuff produced by the worker make it to the fictional warehouse where the rest of us just go in and take only what we need? How does the truck driver store his production which is in the form of service, in the warehouse? Is his labor just a form of valueless effort?

I have to agree with the writer that said Marxism is not an economic system. An economic system must work and Marxism clearly does not.

[oblomov]

Robert Nozick's formulation was, "from each as he chooses, to each as he is chosen".

[marx=satan]

marxism explained:

1) free will does not exist

of course, this is tautologically incorrect, but if you write it poorly enough and "teach" it to lazy and stupid people who can't understand what you write, well, you damn sure might take over the world. (just ask FDR)